The What Can We Get For Bogey Thread

[Handlogten's Heros]

Wait, is that more well-rounded?

The defense only marginally improves, we have less on-ball creators, less shooting. The only real positive is we get bigger.

I think we have this misconception on Fournier... that because he's taller than Mike he's a better defender. He isn't. The Knicks were atrocious defensively when he was on the floor.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

In the playoffs Boston's defense with Fournier was 32 pts per 100 possessions worse last year... not 3.2... 32.

 

[KqWIN]

Wait, is that more well-rounded?

The defense only marginally improves, we have less on-ball creators, less shooting. The only real positive is we get bigger.

Yes, that is more well rounded. You compromise on some of your strengths to address your weaknesses. Fresh faces, players with some upside, different ways you can play. Much better than sticking with a stagnant group with proven failures/weaknesses and no logical way for improvement.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yes, that is more well rounded. You compromise on some of your strengths to address your weaknesses. Fresh faces, players with some upside, different ways you can play. Much better than sticking with a stagnant group with proven failures/weaknesses and no logical way for improvement.

I'd rather have Bogey than Fournier in the mix you suggested. I think Reddish is poop... if he was a good defender I think Thibs would have played him... maybe he can resurrect his career but he's not one I'd want to bet big on.

 

[KqWIN]

I think we have this misconception on Fournier... that because he's taller than Mike he's a better defender. He isn't. The Knicks were atrocious defensively when he was on the floor.

Might look at little different if Fournier was tethered to Gobert for the past two seasons. Mike is going to be 35 next year and just got brutalized in the playoffs when teams targeted him. Of course I want Fournier instead of him defensively.

And am I crazy, or did people freak out when I suggested that Smart for Bogey was a good trade because we'd be too short. I guess size matters now.

 

[KqWIN]

I'd rather have Bogey than Fournier in the mix you suggested. I think Reddish is poop... if he was a good defender I think Thibs would have played him... maybe he can resurrect his career but he's not one I'd want to bet big on.

That's not the decision. Bogey is for PJ. Reddish is a complete wildcard, but just to show you how useful that logic is....why did Thibs play Fournier and make him the primary wing defender on that team?

Conley is dust, we should move him now before we can't.

 

[416Klawzz]

The problem is the league isn't as big on Bojan as we are. If we can't move him for better, we might as well keep him.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Might look at little different if Fournier was tethered to Gobert for the past two seasons. Mike is going to be 35 next year and just got brutalized in the playoffs when teams targeted him. Of course I want Fournier instead of him defensively.

And am I crazy, or did people freak out when I suggested that Smart for Bogey was a good trade because we'd be too short. I guess size matters now.

I wasn't concerned about size at all... shooting yes.

On Mike you are preaching to the choir... just for fun I looked up small guards and when they fell off a cliff... and most didn't quite make it to where Mike is, but if they did they fell off a cliff right where he is on the timeline. I just don't think Fournier is it.

 

[campaignist]

His value is way down as an expiring. I could see a deadline deal to a contender for a late pick or a couple seconds.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

That's not the decision. Bogey is for PJ. Reddish is a complete wildcard, but just to show you how useful that logic is....why did Thibs play Fournier and make him the primary wing defender on that team?

Conley is dust, we should move him now before we can't.

I think because they paid him like 70M and he is a productive offensive player... I think Reddish might be trash on both ends and I don't think he has a good attitude about things.

The other defender he had was Kemba at first then AB... not sure he was using Fournier as the shut down guy. Go look at Fourniers on/off splits for the Boston playoff series and his last Orlando playoff series.

I think Conley is toast but I think we can do much better than Fournier if we move him.

 

[KqWIN]

I wasn't concerned about size at all... shooting yes.

On Mike you are preaching to the choir... just for fun I looked up small guards and when they fell off a cliff... and most didn't quite make it to where Mike is, but if they did they fell off a cliff right where he is on the timeline. I just don't think Fournier is it.

Right, but I don't think you're going to find a good deal for Mike. I'm not a huge proponent of Founier, but that's really what you're going to get for him. All you can really hope for is an "eye of the beholder" type trade, which really means a player that is on a sus contract. I think Fournier has his problems, but I'd still probably rather have him next to Donovan than Conley the next two years. Reddish is just a sprinkle of added incentive.

I'm all ears if you actually think we can get value out of Conley, but to me he's a clear negative contract and we can only expect clear negative value coming back. Mike is at a point in his career where he's a decent PnR player, good spot up shooter, but can't defend or beat players off the dribble by himself anymore. His issues will get magnified in the playoffs and logically get worse with age. He's really a premium backup PG type but getting paid $20+ for age 35 and 36. Second year isn't all guaranteed, but still a heavy chunk of change. I'm definitely taking Reddish and Fournier over the next two years. I have ZERO desire to continuously run back something that's a proven failure.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Right, but I don't think you're going to find a good deal for Mike. I'm not a huge proponent of Founier, but that's really what you're going to get for him. All you can really hope for is an "eye of the beholder" type trade, which really means a player that is on a sus contract. I think Fournier has his problems, but I'd still probably rather have him next to Donovan than Conley the next two years. Reddish is just a sprinkle of added incentive.

I'm all ears if you actually think we can get value out of Conley, but to me he's a clear negative contract and we can only expect clear negative value coming back. Mike is at a point in his career where he's a decent PnR player, good spot up shooter, but can't defend or beat players off the dribble by himself anymore. His issues will get magnified in the playoffs and logically get worse with age. He's really a premium backup PG type but getting paid $20+ for age 35 and 36. Second year isn't all guaranteed, but still a heavy chunk of change.

I think Washington would do KCP and Rui for Mike for sure... I've been pushing KCP and Deni but that might be a bit of wishful thinking. At the very very very least I think you could get KCP and Ish Smith... which at least clears the books while giving a plus defender.

I see Fournier as a negative contract as well. If we did go that route I'd try and snake Deuce McBride from them as the incentive. He played good defense in the league but his shooting was terrible... He murdered the G League though and is a worker. If all we could get is Fournier and Reddish I'd try to move JC for value and bring Mike off the bench.

Teams will take a chance that Conley is still good.. I think we will do alright in that trade.